This Could be Big

[ATeam]

Full Story Here

A law firm seems to be active in pursuing class action law suits based on some of the grievances truckers have voiced for years. Schneider and Swift are targeted. It will be interesting to see where this goes from here.

 

[Bruno]

Full Story Here

A law firm seems to be active in pursuing class action law suits based on some of the grievances truckers have voiced for years. Schneider and Swift are targeted. It will be interesting to see where this goes from here.

Phil

Thanks for the info.

 

[xiggi]

Class action = big money for lawyers, coupon for 2.00 off at chuckie cheese for the complainants.

 

[Crazynuff]

Expecting to win a suit because they were paid HHG miles rather than hub miles and had unpaid detention time ? If they win every carrier in the business will face similar action .
My money says Swift and Schneider lawyers outgun these lawyers .

 

[greg334]

Yes it could be big.

It could change the industry around and make all of us employees, which means we get paid less and they have more control.

Yep big.

I'll be waiting for my coupon to McDonalds.

 

[Dakota]

Yes it could be big.

It could change the industry around and make all of us employees, which means we get paid less and they have more control.

Yep big.

I'll be waiting for my coupon to McDonalds.

Greg, for years certain companies treat their independent contractor/sub contractors like employees. The difference is they move all the insurance and tax burden onto the contractor, but still require the same things that an employer would. They already have most of the control, if we don't like it we are shown the door. This might even the playing field a bit.
As far as it being a class action suit. It is true the lawyers are making all the money

Oh and it won't be coupons for McDonald's, everyone knows McDonald's is the reason all truck drivers are fat. LOL

 

[greg334]

Greg, for years certain companies treat their independent contractor/sub contractors like employees.

But who's fault is that?

It isn't really the guys in the office who I can blame but the contractors themselves.

If they accept poor treatment as the norm, then it becomes the norm. If they fight it by not signing with a company, then it is something that is fought.

The company will get away with what the contractors allow them to, no one is forcing anyone to work for any specific company. I don't see Luca Brasi holding a gun to anyone's head explaining that either their signature or their brains will be on the contract.

The difference is they move all the insurance and tax burden onto the contractor, but still require the same things that an employer would.

Well let's look at the contractor end of it, they are required to be insured under state laws for worker comp, if they own a truck, then it is their truck and their liability to carry insurance is burden due to them as contractors. The tax burden is a moot point, contractors pay their own taxes, it is the nature of being one.

BUT what are those other things?

They already have most of the control, if we don't like it we are shown the door.

Well the contractor has a choice, he is independent and can walk at any time, if he is shown the door, so? NO ONE makes him sign that contract.

Most of the problems I find are the contractors DO NOT read their contracts or even want to understand what they are expected. The problem again isn't with the company but with the contractor - no one is forcing them to do anything.

That is the nature of the relationship, you as a contractor are a tool to be used in a roll that has no liability beyond what you are being contracted for. It doesn't matter if it is a trucking company, IT company or a bakery, when you are no longer needed, you are no longer needed.

This might even the playing field a bit.

But for whom?

The average trucker?

I think not.

The average contractor?

Maybe but more likely not.

Will it screw up the relationship that exists?

Most likely.

As far as it being a class action suit. It is true the lawyers are making all the money

I don't get the stupidity about people grasping onto a "class action suit" as it is something that justifies getting screwed by lawyers. It is a detriment to the individual who wants to recover damages, and like this case, it may be a bit better to go at it with individual suits in different court rooms, then to bring one big lawsuit in one court.

 

[Crazynuff]

Yes it could be big.

It could change the industry around and make all of us employees, which means we get paid less and they have more control.

Yep big.

I'll be waiting for my coupon to McDonalds.

After reading your post I had to go back and reread the article . All those filing suit are company drivers . No contractors are involved .
It seems to me if they weren't paid as required by law the issue could be settled by the Department of Labor .
We also know if these complaints had any grounds OOIDA would have filed successful claims years ago .

 

[greg334]

After reading your post I had to go back and reread the article . All those filing suit are company drivers . No contractors are involved .

That is right on. I posted it as a sarcastic/support response to Xiggi who I think got it.

They are employees and they are being cheated out of their money, not contractors. The FedEx decisions have more ramifications on what we do than anything else but it has yet to rise to the surface in order to see what changes the future may or may not bring.

 

[Turtle]

The issue that will affect independent contractors is the mileage thing. An employee or an independent contractor, if you are paid by the mile, then the mileage must be accurate, at least within reason. The use of Zip Code to Zip Code routing to pay mileage is one that intentionally cheats drivers out of miles driven. That's why carriers use that routing method, despite the more accurate address-to-address routing being widely available to them. While it is reasonable on a load-by-load basis, over time and over many loads it becomes an unreasonably inaccurate method. This is the first time it's been challenged in court in this manner, and the end results will be big, regardless of which way the decision goes.

 

[Crazynuff]

The issue that will affect independent contractors is the mileage thing. An employee or an independent contractor, if you are paid by the mile, then the mileage must be accurate, at least within reason. The use of Zip Code to Zip Code routing to pay mileage is one that intentionally cheats drivers out of miles driven. That's why carriers use that routing method, despite the more accurate address-to-address routing being widely available to them. While it is reasonable on a load-by-load basis, over time and over many loads it becomes an unreasonably inaccurate method. This is the first time it's been challenged in court in this manner, and the end results will be big, regardless of which way the decision goes.

But how many agreed in their contract to be paid HHG ? The carrier pays according to the way the shipper is charged . Carriers may be charging practical miles and paying HHG but I doubt it .
Do you really think you will make more paid practical miles ? Shippers would have to accept paying 10% more . Won't happen . The per mile rate will go down .
Here's an interesting report I found while trying to get info on HHG rates .
Crst Malone | Rip-off Report #308347
The original post is entertaining enough but I love the responder's explanation why you think you are shorted when paid HHG . The speedometers are calibrated 10% high !
I look at posts like this and wonder where the industry is going and why we are in a hand basket .

 

[Turtle]

But how many agreed in their contract to be paid HHG ?

Doesn't matter. It's not an issue of practical miles versus HHG miles. HHG miles is accurate mileage. If that's how you're paid and you choose to take a different routing, that's not the responsibility of the carrier to pay for. It's only a problem, and one that the carrier should pay for, if they calculate mileage and pay based on HHG and still expect the drivers to drive practical routing, and will penalize them if they don't.

But the lawsuit alleges, specifically, that Schneider National paid mileage rates based on computerized estimates that routinely fell below the actual distances driven en route, and that Swift has, for years shortchanged drivers for the actual miles they drive from location to location. The suit claims that Swift ignores reports from drivers showing the actual miles driven, and instead uses an artificial calculation that credits drivers for significantly fewer miles.

HHG is not an artificial calculation. It's accurate mileage. The trip can be driven using HHG routing, even if it's not all that practical.

This isn't about HHG versus Practical, it's about Zip-to-Zip versus location-to-location. Both Schneider and Swift (and many others) will freely admit to using Zip-to-Zip routing, mainly because that's how customers want it figured, too. I wouldn't think very many carriers are charging customers for actual mileage and then paying the drivers the Zip-to-Zip mileage, but some might be.

 

[CharlesD]

Just my .02 regarding miles. Address to address is fine and dandy if you have the addresses. In some cases when you're bidding on freight, all you have when you place the bid is the zip codes, with the exception of NLM which gives you the addresses before you're awarded the load. When you're just given zip codes and you don't get addresses until after you're awarded the load, it's kind of hard to get precise mileage.

Here's how we handle that though. I use zip code to zip code, but I configure Streets and Trips to only use major roads and most of the time it routes the trip the way you would actually drive it. Then I place my bid based on the miles I come up with and not the miles that the broker is using. Some brokers are using shortest distance settings with their routing software, and that strikes me as a blatant attempt to short people miles, more so than just using zip code to zip code.

 

[davekc]

Of course we all know what their defense will be.
"It's an industry standard".